Banquet event order form

Title. Basically I really really enjoy the idea of building very specific Pokémon, even if I’m not going to use them in competitive or anything or they’re not even that good necessarily. The puzzle-solving aspect of putting together a Pokémon across generations is very satisfying to me. I’ll give an example:
I’m playing in a local Natdex Draft league on Pokémon showdown. This week I wanted to run some form of status removal to deal with toxic from my opponent’s blissey. I noticed that on bulbapedia, serperior, which I drafted, learns aromatherapy specifically from a Japanese pokecenter event in tohoku which ran for 2 weeks in December 2011. I started thinking about how someone would go about building the serperior I’m running in a cartridge. Lucky for me, these distribution roms were dumped online ages ago and I have a 3DS with custom firmware which can run them and transfer them to my Japanese copy of black to receive the special snivy. From there, the snivy takes a trip to an english white 2 so it can get on my 3ds with bank and transporter, into gen 7 to learn defog from the usum move tutor, back into bank to be transported to home, into sword from home so that I can place it into the daycare with another snivy that knows glare so it can get glare (egg moves can transfer between pokemon of the same species in the daycare together in gen 8) and then back into home to be transferred into scarlet where it can evolve and learn leaf storm, its final move, have 6 bottle caps used on it to max IVs, have a modest mint used on it, and finally be EV trained in special attack and speed.
So yeah, essentially I really enjoy the idea of giving a Pokémon a tour around the franchise it to build it in some unique way. What are some things I should do with this idea? I could build every world champion’s VGC team, a la YouTuber im a blisy, but I’d love to see what kind of wacky mons you guys think I should build. Thanks!

The void seems tailored to the observer, a reflection of their inner thoughts and feelings. Delilah’s void is painterly, filled with trees and pieces of art. When Daud enters, you can find a letter beside Jessamine saying “YOU KILLED HER YOU KILLED HER YOU KILLED HER….” Which is likely a slight manifestation of his guilt. You can find a similar letter when Corvo first enters the void, it saying “SHE’S DEAD SHES DEAD SHES DEAD…” most likely showing Corvo’s grief. (Emily’s void doesn’t seem to have anything worth noting). I also think it’s worth noting the void in Deathloop, when Julianna takes control of at least a part of it, essentially taking the place of the Outsider, it becomes colorful, and vibrant, representing that time period.
The personification of the void also expends into the powers that individual’s harness from it. Everyone in the series has a different set of supernatural abilities which focus the void in unique ways. Corvo’s abilities represent his thought process, worries and fears regarding Jessamines death, his anger, and the state of Dunwall. Emily represents her status as queen and her wish to sneak away and hide from her duties. Daud’s is much like Corvo’s in terms of worries and life style. And Deliah’s represents her artistic nature, being able to talk and see through statues of herself, use portraits to alter reality etc. When the outsider said “The void isn’t really a place”, what they most likely means is that the void is more so a collective unconscious of sorts, made out of others perception and interpretation of reality. This would explain why it has this weird tie to industry, the whales for whaling and the stone pillars in D2 (which look a lot like the boulders and pieces of stone you can find in Stilton’s house). These are manifestations of how the world is further industrializing. It also ties into the Outsider as I’m fairly certain his tribe hunted and killed whales (tho I could be mistaken) Speaking of The Void seems to require someone or something to inhabit and represent it physically; the Old God or the Outsider for example. It essentially needs a ruler to bring order to it, or else it will begin to corrupt reality as seen in Deathloop.
Another thing about Deathloop, the game further proves that the void seems to connect all points of time together within a single instant; we see this in Stilton’s manor where you easily jump back and forth between past and present, and more so in Deathloop where the AEON program has harnessed the “anomaly” to create a never ending loop. The anomaly most likely being another “crack in the slab” much like Stilton’s manor, only this time an entire island, showing the voids decreasing Stablity.
Over all, from my understanding, the void is a reflection of reality, something that exist both separate from, yet apart of the world. It manifests its users perceptions, dreams, wishes, and fears. A “rhyme” that ripples through reality, forming and molding it. It’s always right in front of you, yet it remains unseen, hidden behind the thin veil of the material world. Where everything begins and ends.

Just venting here, don’t mind little ol’ me.
I’m trying SO HARD to be positive and look on the bright side of things. But I’ve come to realise it’s not MY reaction to things that makes things positive or negative.
I’m at an event with the older kid. Won’t be done until 10pm.
Before I left I ordered Doordash for husband and Youngest, because god forbid my husband have to throw some nuggets in the oven all by himself. He’s been sick and needs to recover! He needs to sit his arse on the couch and scroll Facebook! Duh!
Husband had a swollen chin (he scratched it in his sleep). I’m at kids event and he sends me photos. I text back saying it’s gotten worse. Then I ask how Youngest is.
Husband texts asking why I’m not asking about his chin.
I known where this is heading and call him and jokingly say “What are you complaining about now?”
But he had the phone on speaker and yelled that I’m a bad parent because Youngest heard me say that. Then he hung up.
He’s now refusing to speak to me.
Am I going FUCKING insane???
Is a GROWN MAN really upset and refusing to talk to me over this?
It’s okay, I know it’s not just about ‘this’. He’s in a shitty mood anyway and is taking it out on me. And now he will proceed to ignore me for a few days and then I will get a talk about hurting his feelings and asking me if I truely love him. Not as much as you love yourself, my dude.
This man would be HELL to co-parent with. Pure hell. And he would be pure hell for the kids. Especially my sweet, gentle Youngest. At least now with me around, the guy is so self-involved he has minimal interactions with the kids. Yesterday he was ‘so ill’ he went from work to bed and didnt even say hi to the kids. Didn’t even ask after them.
I’m already kicking myself for not bringing Youngest with me. Sure, he might be bored spending four hours in the car, but it’s better then being stuck with a Man-Baby who has already put himself to bed and is making Youngest watch Netflix on the phone next to him, even though he was happily playing Legos.
I’m trying SO hard to Grey Rock. But it’s so fucking hard to watch everything I say.
Screaming into the Void. Or the Vacuum.

Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.

On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.

This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

Suppose a tiny black hole (e.g. mass of Ceres) were to form, in the midst of some cataclysmic event (supernova or whatever).
Presumably that tiny black hole would promptly evaporate via Hawking radiation, go pop, and disappear?
(This question was inspired by https://astrobites.org/2024/05/29/noclip-on-simulated-primordial-black-holes-could-dance-through-sun-like-stars/ )

This is a paper I wrote for my genre class. Thought you guys might appreciate it.
​
A Soulja Boy interpolation and unabashed, blaring computerized synths drives That Kid’s track “Kiss Me Thru the Phone” where he relies on the nostalgic interpolation singing, “I just wanna kiss you / But I can't right now / So baby kiss me thru the phone.” Lyrics likes these and glitchy, distorted vocals and beats provide a unique listening experience that asks little of the listener in terms of content and expression while asking for contemplation and reflection regarding form. Hyperpop has become a community-based genre, and a space, for independent queer artists to express themselves and develop culture from the sidelines. The genre is attractive because of the tension between its queerly-nostalgic, kitsch lyrical content and avant-garde musical production.
​
What is Hyperpop?
The microgenre has been covered by The New York Times and The Atlantic with the latter’s article title reading, “Noisy, Ugly, and Addictive.” Hyperpop as a genre began as a Spotify playlist whose relatively small following of about 450,000 currently that, according to The New York Times, followers add to their library at a rate rivaling that of some of the biggest playlists on the platform like “RapCaviar.” WXPN, a non-commercial, member-supported radio service of the University of Pennsylvania, describes hyperpop as “…a genre that takes modern mainstream pop concepts, crushes them up, spits them out, ingests them again, and spits them out again. Perhaps that’s an exaggeration. But not an egregious one.” Maximalist and exaggerative, hyperpop takes the conventions of the pop genre and pushes them to its extreme. Resulting in “surrealist lyrics, overblown bass and high pitch vocals” and “Glitches, metallic sound synths and distorted vocals” (Lucas De Lellis da Silva). Hyperpop is a genre that defies the genre label in its transformation of other genres such as hip-hop, trap, rock, and punk. Its punk influence can also be seen with “its alignment with queerness, anti-capitalist and environmentalist beliefs raises questions on our current notions of technology and issues of representation.”
​
The Paradox
Hyperpop music production is where it is most avant-garde. The genre imitates pop music and exaggerates it, pop music being an imitation in itself. In his essay, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” Clement Greenberg on the avant-garde says, “[According to] Aristotle, all art and literature are imitation, then what we have here is the imitation of imitating.” Greenberg describes Picasso paintings as avant-garde, where the reflection of the painting, the interpretation and deliberation on part of the audience, “are not immediately or externally present in Picasso's painting but must be projected into it by the spectator sensitive enough to react sufficiently to plastic qualities.” On the other hand, Greenberg (misattributing a painting to Repin) describes Repin as a kitsch artist. Greenberg says “the “reflected” effect having already been included in the picture, ready for the spectator's unreflective enjoyment.” Greenberg summarizes this point when he says, “If the avant-garde imitates the processes of art, kitsch, we now see, imitates its effects.” Both avant-garde and kitsch can be seen in hyperpop where the production is avant-garde, glitchy, distorted and experimental and the lyrics are kitsch, overt, and cliché.
There are class biases regarding high art (e.g. avant-garde) and low art (e.g. kitsch). On the material importance of class and aesthetics, Greenberg claims that

“No culture can develop without a social basis, without a source of stable income. And in the case of the avant-garde, this was provided by an elite among the ruling class of that society from which it assumed itself to be cut off, but to which it has always remained attached by an umbilical cord of gold. The paradox is real. And now this elite is rapidly shrinking” (8).

To Greenberg, and within the context of the time that his essay was published in 1961, the avant-garde belonged to the ruling class because they provided capital that allowed artists to survive and create the art that aligned with the taste of that class. However, because of the ubiquity in technology and specifically the accessibility of Digital Audio Workstations, hyperpop artists defy Greenberg’s expectations by being created and conceptualized by the working class, “a democratized option in the music industry” as Gazelle puts it.
On the effect the ruling class’s funding has on the artist, Greenberg says, “precisely because his content was determined in advance, the artist was free to concentrate on his medium. He needed not to be philosopher, or visionary, but simply artificer” (16). Being an artificer allowed artists to focus on their medium and its form. Because hyperpop music is not determined in advance by the ruling class, hyperpop artists instead must focus on form and content which has resulted in avant-garde production and a reliance on kitsch imagery in their lyrics.
Perhaps the most avant-garde, the acclaimed hyperpop song “ringtone remix [feat. Charli XCX, Rico Nasty, Kero Kero Bonito]” by 100 gecs demonstrates the paradox of being avant-garde and kitsch. The song displays a catchy hook with distorted sound effects and pitched up vocals, a rap passage over a rock instrumentation, an interlude asking Charli XCX to sing the hook again, and finally an outro that features whispers and a sparse electronic drums. The song pushes the boundaries of form. However, once again, the lyrics are kitschy; “spilling champagne” and “my boy’s got his own ringtone” which invokes the tradition of giving specific phone numbers particular ringtones popular in the 2000s.
​
Nostalgic Lyrics
Queer artists in the hyperpop genre have relied on nostalgic lyrics. This queer sensibility is not new or unique to hyperpop. In Time Binds, Elizabeth Freeman posits, “This stubborn lingering of pastness (whether it appears as anachronistic style, as the reappearance of bygone events in the symptom, or as arrested development) is a hallmark of queer affect: a ‘‘revolution’’ in the old sense of the word, as a turning back” (8). Hyperpop follows the queer tradition of expressing pastness in its references to Sidekick phones, Ronald Reagan’s 2004 death, and overall, a Year 2000 aesthetic. Freeman continues,

““Heather Love’s Feeling Backward, for instance, astutely diagnoses the ‘‘backwards’’ emotions elaborated by artists for whom the birth of the modern homosexual identity-form was constraining rather than liberating: shame, passivity, melancholy, and recoil, to name but a few, were ways of refusing the progressive logic by which becoming ever more visible was correlated with achieving ever more freedom” (8).

Hyperpop lyrics largely reminisces the 2000s, which goes against the typical notion of queerness valuing progressiveness and the striving for more freedom. The “backwards” emotions such as shame feel constraining to the modern queer-identifying person; nostalgia allows for them to escape that label to a time where things seem simpler, especially for the Gen-Z artists that make up the genre. In other words, Freeman is saying that “the discipline of ‘‘timing’’ engenders a sense of being and belonging that feels natural” (18). Because queer-identifying people face shame, they rely on a sense of time and timing that mirrors their marginalized lives which is also echoed in the glitchy vocals and musical production.
The genre also does not bend to the musical trends of the moment. A hyperpop artists does not need to constantly update their sound to match the current sonic landscapes because they are creating music that exaggerates a particular decade. Pastness allows for these artists to resist the “commodity-time of speedy manufacture and planned obsolescence,” (Freeman 9) aligning with the anti-capitalist values of the genre.
Nostalgia and kitsch are related. For example, even people that did not experience the 2000s the way Gen Z experienced it can relate and empathize with hyperpop lyrics because they are kitsch. In her essay Stephanie Brown says,

“These [kitsch] objects not only anchor the viewer's memory of a time that is past but also inspire "memories" of an era whose collective Zeitgeist has been so encapsulated as to be readily available, prepackaged, even to those whose individual experiences did not include firsthand knowledge of the phenomena of an earlier decade. The effect—to condense, flatten, and homogenize the discontinuous experiences of a heterogeneous group of people and then to sell these experiences back to them as if they were genuine—is… the inevitable result of the late-capitalist predilection for periodization…” (40).

This analysis reveals that kitsch is context dependent. For example, profile avatars, big computers, the “blue screen of death” are all imagery that one may find in cover art for a hyperpop album that also represent a 2000s aesthetic. One may find this flavor of American 2000s memorabilia nostalgic, and another may find them completely meaningless if they are not aware of the context that those objects existed in, the connotation they carry for the artists, or the effect that these depictions have on its intended audience.
​
Hyperpop’s Attraction
The hyperpop genre has a tension that can be stated as a capitalist predilection for its kitschy lyrics and an anti-capitalist predilection for its musical production. An example of this is Charli XCX’s recent song “Club classics” whose vapid lyrics convey little to nothing making it easy to consume, with a chorus repeating the lines “When I go to the club, I wanna hear those club classics / Club classics, club, club classics.” However, the production exaggerates the production conventions of traditional pop through minimalist moments of technologic vocals overlaid on a wobbling bass sound effect, a stuttering vocal in the background with orchestral synths at another moment, and shrill harmonies dotting the backend of the track.
Perhaps these lyrics are attractive exactly because they are “beyond the realm of “good taste.”” Paralleling kitsch, camp provides a supplementary set of standards to view art, not as good or bad, but as having meaning or being pure artifice. Brown states, “Camp is a sly celebration of bad taste and vulgarity from a position of privilege” (50). Brown gives an example of a position of privilege as men doing drag; them being men, even if queer, gives them the ability to dress as women and remain men and “enjoy a hegemonic superiority” (50). Perpendicular to camp, kitsch allows a consumer to enjoy art from the position of the underprivileged. Brown also states that enjoying kitsch is like it “is there to entertain us on the basest, most compromised of levels… Junk, like the drunk at the wedding, can get away with doing or saying anything because, by its very appearance, it is already in disgrace.”
The other relational dimension of the attraction to the genre is the rebellion that it provides listeners. Brown writes, “today's consumers look to kitsch consumption as a way of rejecting an aesthetic hierarchy forced upon them by economically determined and class-bound interests.” Listening and enjoying hyperpop for its lyrical content is a kind of revolt from the ruling class’s distinctions of what high and low art are. Hyperpop is both high and low art according to the ruling class. It is preoccupied, plays, and breaks form; in Greenberg’s words, it imitates the processes of art. It also is cliché and overt in its lyrical content, imitating effect. It is through the ambiguation that allows listeners to commit to appreciating it for its high art value, its low art value, or both.
​
The Future of Hyperpop
However, as the genre grows and opportunities befall hyperpop artists, it has been exploited. Greenberg says, “Capitalism in decline finds that whatever of quality is still capable of producing becomes almost invariably a threat to its own existence” (21). This is evident with artists like Camila Cabello (one of the most listened to artists of today with a powerful label backing her) making a genre switch from pop/Latin pop to hyperpop with her first single “I LUV IT” featuring Playboi Carti off her upcoming album. Other than being poorly received and deemed a Charli XCX rip off by hyperpop fans, Camila Cabello capitalizes and therefore, strips the genre of its underground roots, making even the production of the track redundant. “I LUV IT” is an imitation of an imitation of an imitation. If we were to take this song as a sign, an omen, for the genre, hope for hyperpop shall remain elusive.

Holy moly Nintendo cooked a banquet fit for a monarch and gave us a freaking Warbow with this season in the form of the Wellstring, it’s a jack of all trades, master at ALL.
Paint? Stupid levels at full charge, easy 1.4K turf every match.
Close quarters combat? Incredibly consistent OHKO with level 1, the tap shots can also one shot.
Support/chip/trapping? Floor level twos cover so much area, you are guaranteed to get at least one or two 30 damage pellets in plus the stupid amount of paint and opponents are just a splattershot tap, indirect bomb, splatana slash or even another 2 shot and they’re sent straight to Crusty Shawn’s in an ice box.
Long range threatening/ long range area control? Big Stringer doesn’t want you to know this, but aim a little up, level 2 jump shot and all your bullets clump up together, and the gimmick downside of all your long shots hit every single side of the barn and miss the apple is gone. You threaten a 90-death to everything you see and bring ruin to everything in a 45* angle in front of you. BTW it OHKOs through spawn armour, because why not. And because you output so much paint, your weapon provides so much long range passive control that you get to sit with pencil at the ‘I can stall zones 1v3 by myself club’.
Object damage? + 10% damage to splash wall.
Kit support? Ink efficiency is so good you can toss out location like candy, Wave serves well as a distraction so you can shoot them better and stamp lets you be funny.
Cover shenanigans? Overpeaking works really well with this weapon and arcing your shots turns you into a flyfish artillery that makes nowhere on the map safe.
Playing this weapon feels like Splatoon 1 damage up E-litre 3k. It’s called the Wellstring V because your’re going 5W0L when you bring this to Anarchy. Mister Bear and Dedf1sh themselves modified this weapon with hidden Golden Egg Phials and Colour Chips to allow a Grizzco on the Side in multiplayer to let you be the new Splatoon 2 launch Tri Slosher.
Using this weapon makes you Apollo smiting Achilies in battle, Using this Weapon makes you Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
…
…
…
So anyways see you all mid season patch and heavy bow gets nerfed into the ground and TriZooka remains unchanged again.

I'd expect the vast majority of the people who oppose what Israel is doing in Palestine are not loudly chanting at protests.

Again, you're entirely ignoring the point. If something is chanted by thousands, it's either a common belief, or at least one propagated by the leaders of the movement. Just because it doesn't fit with your perspective doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

Then why does the article I linked clearly show leaflets advising civilians to evacuate to the area where the strike occurred?

Did you look at the map? The leaflet very clearly says The Humanitarian Area, which extends into northern Tal As Sultan. The map pretty clearly shows that.

Do you not think it at all suspicious that Israel have a recording of the event that would very clearly exonerate them, and yet have not released it or even claimed that their recording shows this?

Jesus christ my guy, they literally did release the footage. Just because you refuse to look it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
They literally did release footage of the strike itself. Footage in which you can see that the aerial map they released is correct, as the buildings surrounding the area in the video are the same as the ones for where they claimed the strike is in the map they released. In the map, btw, you can see that the area of the strike is removed from the tents. All of this is in the articles I linked.

don't think you've quite appreciated the difference between "footage" and "footage that shows X".

Just because you refuse to do any sort of personal deliberation and expect to be handed every piece of information on a spoon doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We do know it was one of those small munitions, as I already said. Another thing we simultaneously know is that those small munitions could start a fir

And another thing we know is that the area where the strike occoured is removed from the tents. In fact both claimed locations of the strike are removed from the tents; both the IDF's and even Hamas' claims for where the strike occoured show them over 100 meters from where we know the fire started. Why do you drop that piece of information?
The IDF's claimed location is even entirely removed from the tents by an open area, and Hamas' claim has the entirety of the UN facility between the strike and the tents- a UN facility which didn't catch fire. So unless the fire somehow managed to spread across 100 meters of open field, or go around an entire aid distribution facility without anyone noticing, it's pretty safe to say that the bomb didn't start the fire.
Again, all of this is in the articles I linked. Just because you refuse to do any deliberation of your own doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

From where those tents were, sure. That doesn't mean there wasn't flammable material lying around that could have triggered a fire that reached those tents. Fuel, for example.

For 100 meters straight? And around a UN facility- but without it catching fire? And no one thought to mention it anywhere? That's some amazing fuel!

Then why have you decided that it is true, when the footage from those Palestinians does not show a secondary rocket explosion, and when the Israeli footage would show this if it had happened that way?

The footage from the Palestinians only started after the fire. And I'm not claiming it's true, I'm explaining to you why Israel is still investigating the matter, because you claimed that "if they claimed this then they should have all the footage!" When they aren't the ones who made that claim. Just like you and I, they are also investigating the fire.
Also, I brought them up because you were literally just dismissing that information because it came from Israel, even when it literally came from Palestinians.

Not even the Americans trust Israel to deliver aid

I'm sorry but you seem to have an entirely incomplete image of how the aid distribution works in Gaza. No, the Americans do trust Israel to coordinate aid. But that's just that, Israel doesn't deliver the aid, it coordinates it. What does that mean? Israel gathers all the aid donations, loads them unto trucks, and brings those trucks to Kerem Shalom or Erez. From there, the trucks are picked up by the UN and NGOs who then distribute them.
The problem with Gazan aid was distribution, as a lot of aid failed to reach its destination, and Israel refused to get involved in distribution. Israel literally had a backlog of hunderds of trucks which they already vetted, but we're waiting to be picked up by the UN.
The pier was opened because the US believed it would make distribution easier. But what happened after it opened? Did you intentionally leave that piece of information out?
I'll tell you.
70% of it was stolen. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20658/gaza-aid-stolen
Because the problem wasn't with Israeli coordination, it was with distribution. Those are two different things.

Yes, the conditions the population of Gaza were forced into for the past eight months were indeed extremely bad

Again, are you intentionally ignoring the point or are you just missing it? Yes, the situation of Gazans is dire. You still fail to explain how Rafah having houses for 171k people somehow makes it better for the remaining 1.5 million over a zone specifically designed to house large numbers of displaced people.

A few ideas - instead of bombing absolutely everything, focus attacks on clear military targets.

Thank you man! Why didn't they think of that?
I swear that people with no military experience will act like they're the chief of the Pentagon when it comes to this conflict.
I actually was in the military, so let's set a few things straight. when fighting guerilla warfare, there are no clear military targets. That's literally the definition of urban guerilla warfare. Embedding yourself within the urban environment and within civilians to fight against a stronger enemy. It isn't like there's buildings marked as "HAMAS HEADQUARTERS" that Israel can just attack and leave everyone else alone. Hamas very intentionally and very openly hides themselves within the civilian population and areas, hence why to attack them, you have to remove the civilians from the region via evacuation. That's literally how every urban conflict against a guerilla force in history was done. It was how the US fought against the Taliban in the cities of Afghanistan, it's how Iraqi forces fought against ISIS in Mosul, and its how the coalition fought against ISIS in Raqqa.
In fact, Raqqa and Mosul both saw far more destruction than Gaza did; with Gaza's figures suggesting 70% of the buildings were damaged to some capacity, where in Mosul some estimates go up to 80% or even 90%. When an enemy embeds themselves in a civilian population, there's no easy way of fighting them. Urban guerilla warfare is quite literally the ugliest form of combat.
As you mention the bombs, you seem to be under the impression they are just dropped for funsies. Like, "Oh, I feel like dropping a 2000 lbs bomb today! How about we do that here?"
It shows complete ignorance of military doctoring and combat. 2000 lbs bombs are also known as "bunker busters". Can you guess why? Because their impact is powerful enough to burst through the ground and collapse underground bunkers. Which might be useful when, oh, I don't know, your enemy has 500 Kilometers of tunnels weaving under your feet?
Lastly, you bring up the World Kitchen strike as some sort of Gotcha, but it perfectly encapsulates your cognitive dissonance. You're amplifying one incident over thousands of other successful strikes, and an incident even the head of World Kitchen said was a mistake. A mistake for which two of thw IDF's top generals were fired.
You're not the first person I say this to, and sadly, you won't be the last. But if you have no knowledge of military, don't try to act like you do. It just makes it seem like you're under the dunning Kruger effect.

Welcoming a new bundle of joy into the world is a momentous occasion, and what better way to celebrate than with a thoughtfully decorated baby shower? Gone are the days of traditional and predictable decorations; today's expecting mothers are embracing innovative and trendy ideas for their special day. In this article, we'll explore the latest baby shower decoration trends, ensuring the modern mom-to-be has a celebration as unique as her. Make your baby shower event more special and amazing by selecting the best baby shower decoration themes from Take Rent Pe — an online supplier providing decoration setups on rent. With more than 100+ décor set ideas, pick your ones and let the team do the whole event management for you.

1. Balloon Extravaganza: Elevate Your Baby Shower Decorations When it comes to baby shower decorations, balloons are no longer just colorful floating orbs. The trend now is to create balloon installations that make a bold statement. From balloon arches framing the entrance to balloon garlands cascading down walls, this trend adds a whimsical and modern touch to the celebration. Balloons can be customized to match the theme and color scheme, making them a versatile and visually striking choice for baby shower decor. For a seemantham decoration or godh bharai decoration, consider incorporating traditional elements with balloon arrangements. Mixing cultural aesthetics with contemporary decor creates a visually stunning and meaningful atmosphere.
2. Greenery Galore: Embrace Nature-Inspired Baby Shower Decorations Greenery and natural components are now the main attraction in contemporary baby shower décor. Incorporating nature into the celebration creates a calm and refreshing atmosphere, whether it takes the form of potted plants as centrepieces or elaborate floral arrangements. To create the ideal backdrop for photographs, think about building a floral wall or a backdrop of cascading foliage. Plan your godh bharai decorations with culturally significant flowers and foliage in mind. This produces a harmonic fusion of heritage and modern style in addition to adding a personal touch.
   
3. Theme-Based Decor: Make Your Baby Shower Unique The days of basic baby shower décor are long gone. These days, expectant mothers are choosing themed parties that match their interests and personalities. Whether the theme is vintage-inspired, celestial-themed, or boho-chic, picking a theme makes for coherent and photogenic décor. For seemantham decoration, select a theme that resonates with cultural traditions and values. This can be a wonderful way to celebrate the mother-to-be's heritage while incorporating trendy elements into the decor.
   
4. Dessert Table Extravaganza: Satisfy Sweet Tooth and Sight A popular trend in modern godh bharai decoration is the creation of a show-stopping dessert table. Think beyond the conventional cake and include an array of sweet treats like cupcakes, cookies, and cake pops, all adorned with thematic decorations. Not only does this delight guests' taste buds, but it also serves as a visually appealing focal point for the celebration. When designing godh bharai or seemantham décor, incorporate traditional desserts and sweets with cultural importance. This displays the depth of cultural tradition in addition to bringing back some nostalgia. In conclusion, the era of predictable and mundane baby shower decorations is long gone. Modern moms-to-be are embracing innovative and stylish trends to make their special day memorable. From balloon extravaganzas to nature-inspired decor, themed celebrations, and dessert table extravaganzas, there are countless ways to elevate the ambiance of a baby shower. Whether planning a seemantham decoration or a universal celebration, these trending ideas ensure that the modern mom-to-be and her guests have an unforgettable experience.. Thus, use your imagination, make the event uniquely your own, and let the baby shower decorations capture the essence of this happy occasion.
   

Age: 17
Demographics: female, (south) asian, public high, sweden
Hooks: none..
Intended Major: physics, mathematics but if it doesn't work out then classics
UW/W GPA and Rank: school doesn't do gpa's or ranks, but i recieved highest grade qualification for senior years (we have 2 senior years)
Coursework: we don't do aps/honours/ibs or anything of the like, but i take 5 subjects, 2 scholarship subjects, + received online certificates in various physics and maths courses (not sure if this counts??)

• maths, statistics, english (advanced), geography, biology, chemistry, physics, history
• highest grade (basically a+) on all assignments for my all subjects including certificates received

Awards: none..
Extracurriculars:

1. co-created, and leader of project at school that works to create conversational/informal english learning plans for ESL/migrant students, reached about 80 migrant students in school within a month
2. member of student leadership council, developing and overseeing all programs in school such as cultural share days, fundraisers, ramadan nights and a lot more. also worked to develop school spirit week, implementing various fun activities for students
3. volunteer tutomentor for junior students in maths, english and science, helping 20 or more students weekly
4. co-president of the literature society, creating first school magazine, hosting writing competitions, holding open mics and organising trips to literature festivals
5. received bronze medal for volunteering for various things (making food for the homeless, pest control, tree planting etc.)
6. volunteer at charity store that raises money for animal welfare, volunteering 11 hours weekly, serving up to 100 customers per day
7. member of volunteering club at school, hosting and aiding the development of activities for children at local library (weekly), and implementing english language activities and lessons for migrant students at local elementary
8. published blog, i write my own blog on physics (astronomy) and literature
9. gymnastics for 4 years, performed at some small competitions
10. piano for 4 years, nothing major but performed at family events like birthdays, anniversaries etc.

Essays/LORs/Other: i've got good essays, standing at 8-9/10 currently, i'm getting feedback from teacher at school who graduated columbia

• form teacher: 7/10, my physics teacher and we had good convos about this
• english (columbia) teacher: 9/10, i help her out a lot with activities
• charity shop manager: 9/10, i'm her first student volunteer and we regularly converse

Schools (in no specific order):

1. vassar
2. bowdoin
3. bates
4. williams
5. bard
6. middlebury
7. boston college
8. wesleyan
9. (not liberal arts) university of vermont

thank you, sorry for the messiness

I was meant to go to an event today with a friend I haven’t seen in ages. Our last few plans had been cancelled due to them double-booking plans with other people and even though I was upset, I brushed it off, and they apologised and said that they didn’t want to piss off the other person they had plans with. I took a step back and decided to let them put the effort in to our friendship.
They called me this week and asked me if I wanted to go to this daytime event/festival today. I said yes, I was really excited tbh. They can’t stay out past late afternoon because they’re working early tmrw and also they were going for a few drinks the night before, but nothing big and even suggested we meet in the morning. I texted last night to confirm and still good, but pushed back meeting by an hour. I woke up to texts from late last night/this morning saying they basically felt rough and asking to push back again a couple of hours and meet mid afternoon.
I just feel like cancelling because I honestly feel pissed - the best bits of the event will be over by then, they’re going to be hungover, we won’t have as much time before they have to go, and if they’re tired/hungover they’ll likely leave earlier anyway and it’s annoying me because I know they absolutely 100% are not expecting me to be annoyed or cancel. I get that it’s easy to lose track of time when you’re having fun, and 9 times out of 10, I wouldn’t mind. A huge part of it is that they know I never get mad, and it hurts that they made decisions knowing it would impact the time/ability they had to be present when they’ve been so busy that I haven’t seen them in months, whereas the people they were out with last night are people they see regularly. They also know that I’ve been going through a really hard time, and this meant a lot to me, and there’s just a lot more history there that’s making this more hurtful.
What makes it worse is that some new friends (who have been so so lovely) invited me to the same event literally a few hours after I’d been asked, and I didn’t want to turn them down and they kind of know my friend through a mutual friend (met a few times on nights out) so I asked if they could come along/we all meet up, or I could join after they left, and they just haven’t responded at all and I’m a bit confused and not sure if I overstepped. I also didn’t want to just say no because I knew there was a good chance my friend would flake, and they seemed like healthier friends than my old friend group tbh so I wanted to put effort in buuuut I kind of feel like I fucked that up lol.
I’ve just been noticing it more and more since going through a really rough patch in my life and ig reaching my limit on being an afterthought - I’m constantly the one that people let down when given the choice between me and someone else, and I feel like it’s something I’ve created in my relationships by always choosing to let it go, or not wanting people to feel like they have to worry about me getting mad. Now I don’t really know how to change it, or whether the friendships I’ve formed will survive that.
I don’t know whether me cancelling is just punishing myself/an overreaction, or setting a boundary. I don’t want to disrespect myself by brushing off my feelings and still going to this thing with them just because I don’t want to go alone/want to catch up with them. I also genuinely know that they do love me a lot (we’ve known each other a long time), these things happen, and it’s maybe just not that deep, or I just need to think about it from a different perspective. I’ve not replied to their messages and we’re supposed to meet in a couple of hours. I just feel really lost.
Has anyone else experienced similar things, or maybe have any suggestions/advice, please? Ty in advance! xx
tl:dr; friend changed up plans last minute due to going out the night before, want to cancel bc I’m hurt and feel like they see me as a pushovewouldn’t do this to other friends, but don’t want to act out of emotions/go about this the wrong way.

The City University of New York's faculty union rejected a resolution calling for an Israel boycott. The decision may relate more to salary negotiations than to views on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Three years after voting to “consider” boycotting Israel, and weeks after defending a pro-Palestinian student encampment, the faculty union of the City University of New York overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for an Israel boycott.
The union’s president actively opposed the resolution, saying that it inappropriately singled out Israel. But insiders say the Professional Staff Congress’ rejection may have had more to do with the union’s salary negotiations than any principled view about the Israel-Hamas war, which has roiled the CUNY system.
The resolution called for the university system to carry out a number of steps that anti-Israel protesters have called for at CUNY and dozens of other colleges and universities across the country this spring.
“Ban all academic trips to the Zionist state, encompassing birthright, Fulbright, and perspectives trips,” the proposal said. “Cancel all forms of cooperation with Israeli academic institutions, including events, activities, agreements, and research collaborations.”
The measure, called Resolution in Support of CUNY Gaza Solidarity Encampment, also demanded that CUNY divest from all “companies complicit in the imperialist-zionist genocide” as well as for full transparency regarding CUNY’s investments.
The resolution also called for the NYPD, which arrested dozens of people when dismantling City College’s encampment weeks ago, to be banned from campus. It called on CUNY to reinstate professors fired for anti-Israel activism — though it did not specify who it was referring to.
The resolution endorsed a Palestinian right of return to Israel, which many Israelis view as tantamount to the end of Jewish sovereignty in Israel. And it called for a “fully-funded, free CUNY that is not beholden to zionist and imperialist private donors.”
The union’s 300-member delegate assembly, its central policy-making body, rejected the resolution by a vote of 117 to 40, according to a spokesperson.
Manfred Philipp, a former member of the delegate assembly who has maintained ties to the union, said he believes the resolution was voted down because it would have been detrimental to the PSC’s interests, not because of union members’ views on the conflict. The union has an obligation to negotiate salary contracts for its members, and the anti-Israel resolution could have hurt the union’s chances of securing a salary increase from city and state lawmakers who are sympathetic to Israel, Philipp said.
“The basis of the opposition to the resolution has nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East. It has everything to do with the interests of the union and the university,” said Philipp, who taught at CUNY’s Lehman College for decades before retiring around a decade ago.
“The union’s self-interest says they should not take a position on this at all,” he said, adding that he supported the result of the vote.
The PSC says it represents 30,000 faculty and staff across CUNY’s 25 colleges. Its delegate assembly includes representatives from each college’s chapter and the 27 general officers in the union’s executive council.
Ahead of the vote, union president James Davis sent an email to the delegate assembly opposing the resolution, saying the measure had been rushed through without proper input from union members, and that it only targeted Israeli universities, not “universities in countries engaged in serial human rights abuses or committing genocide, a singularity that many of our colleagues would find objectionable.”
Earlier this month, the union condemned a pro-Palestinian strike by its own members. But previously, it has taken pro-Palestinian positions and has drawn accusations of discrimination from Jewish faculty. In recent weeks, the PSC demanded charges be dropped against protesters at the pro-Palestinian encampment, condemned police action against protesters and backed protesters at Columbia University.
A group of Jewish professors sued the PSC in 2022 after the union adopted a resolution criticizing Israel the previous year, calling it discriminatory. A judge dismissed the case. Dozens of Jewish professors resigned from the union due to the resolution.
That 2021 resolution also called to consider union support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.
A 2016 state executive order bars state agencies from anti-Israel boycotts, meaning that a boycott could come with financial consequences for the CUNY system. But the faculty union does not set policy for the system.
CUNY has long faced allegations of antisemitism on its campuses. The university system, the nation’s largest urban college network with more than 225,000 students, has come under fire in recent years from city and state lawmakers for reported discrimination against Jewish students.
Last year, weeks after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ordered a third-party investigation into antisemitism at CUNY.
The system has been a hotspot for anti-Israel protests since then. In March, Hunter College opened an investigation after protesters chanted that Jews at the school needed to “pick a side.” Earlier this month, two CUNY campuses nixed Jewish events due to protests.
CUNY has taken steps to address antisemitism on its campuses, including by setting up an advisory council on Jewish life and partnering with Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage to educate students about the Holocaust.
CUNY union rejects Israel boycott amid salary talks - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

A Brief rundown to the surname "李" LI
History
Mandarin form of the surname 李 meaning ‘plum’: (i) said to have been adopted in place of the Chinese surname 理 (also pronounced Li; meaning ‘rules’ in Chinese) by Li Zhen (利貞) son of an official called Li Zheng (理徵) in the late Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC). It is said that Li Zhen's father incurred the displeasure of King Zhou of Shang (died 1046 BC) and Li Zhen fled to a wasteland area where he survived on wild plums. After his return to civilization he changed his surname to Li (李 ‘plum’) a word with the same pronunciation. The original surname 理 is said to be from Li Guan (理官) the name of a post of officials in charge of legislation in ancient China. Li Er (李耳) also known as Lao Tzu or Lao Zi traditionally regarded as the founder of Taoism is believed to have been a descendant of Li Zhen. (ii) adopted as a surname by the Chi Li (叱李) family from the Xianbei ethnic group during the Northern Wei dynasty (386–534 AD). (iii) in the early years of the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD) sixteen high officials with different surnames were granted the surname Li (李) the surname of the royal family of the Tang dynasty by Emperor Taizong of Tang (died 649 BC) because of their contributions to the establishment of the Tang regime. (iv) the surname can also be traced back to several minority ethnic groups in ancient China. Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 黎 meaning ‘black’ or ‘multitude’ in ancient Chinese: (i) from Li (黎) the name of an ancient state (located in Changzhi in Shanxi province) during the Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC) which was annexed in the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BC) and later granted to Fengshu also known as Li Hou (黎侯 'Marquis Li'). (ii) adopted as a surname by the Su Li (素黎) family members of the Xianbei ethnic group during the Northern Wei dynasty (386–534 AD). Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 利 meaning ‘sharp fortunate’ or ‘benefits’ in Chinese: (i) from the first element of the personal name Li Zhen (利貞) son of an official called Li Zheng (理徵) in the late Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC) also see 1 (i) above. (ii) from the placename Li (利) the name of a fief (located in Hubei province or in Sichuan province) granted to a prince in the state of Chu during the Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BC). (iii) adopted as a surname by the Chi Li (叱利) family members of the Xianbei ethnic group during the Northern Wei dynasty (386–534 AD). Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 栗 meaning ‘chestnut’ in Chinese: (i) said to be from Li Lu (栗陸) the title of a legendary emperor in ancient China. (ii) from Li (栗) the name of an ancient state (located in Xiayi in Henan province) during the late Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC) which was annexed in the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BC). Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 厲 meaning ‘strict rigorous’ in Chinese: (i) from Li (厲) the posthumous title of Qi Li Gong (齊厲公 the Duke Li of Qi ruler of the state of Qi died 816 BC). (ii) from Li (厲) the name of an ancient state (located in Suixian in Hubei province) during the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BC). (iii) adopted in place of the Chinese surname 孫. The king Sun Hao in the state of Wu during the Three Kingdoms period (220–280 AD) ordered the family members of Sun Xiu (a general in the state of Wu possibly died 301 BC) to change their surname to Li (厲) because Sun Xiu had defected to the state of Jin. (iv) adopted in place of the Chinese surname Li (李) by the extended family of an official called Li Jin (李晉) during the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD) who was killed because of his attempt to usurp the throne. Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 酈: from the placename Li (酈) the name of an ancient state (located in Henan province) annexed by the state of Chu during the Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BC).7: Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 禮 meaning ‘ceremonies’ or ‘etiquette’ in ancient Chinese: (i) from the first element of the personal name Li Kong (禮孔) and Li Zhi (禮至) officials in the state of Wey who were descendants of Wey Kang Shu (衛康叔 Kang Shu of Wey) founder of the state of Wey. (ii) borne by the descendants of the masters of ceremonies in ancient China.8: Chinese: Mandarin form of the surname 勵 meaning ‘encourage’ in Chinese: (i) said to be adopted in place of another surname Sun (孫) by descendants of Sun Xiu (possibly died 301 BC) also see 5 (iii) above. (ii) said to be adopted in place of another surname Li (厲) by Li Dune an official in the Qing dynasty (1616–1911 AD) who was endowed with the surname Li (勵) by the then emperor.9: Vietnamese: variant of Lệ from the Chinese surname 酈 see 6 above and Le .10: Vietnamese (Lí): variant of Ly from the Chinese surname 李see 1 above.1 Norwegian: habitational name from any of numerous farmsteads named Li from Old Norse hlíth ‘mountain slope hillside’. Compare Lie
Source: Dictionary of American Family Names 2nd edition, 2022

Two word which I think Kaz operates without.
Your latest game has been proven to be lacklustre time and time again, you have 20+ year loyal fanbase whom you consistently ignore and you bring your employees at Polyphony Digital into unsatisfactory standing. I think if I were an employee I would have left a long time ago, many companies seem to make games and adjustments to thise games for their players. You Kaz, seem to only bother with yourself.
Gran Turismo and Polyphony Digital have fallen from grace, this is your only franchise yet you do very little to make it grow.
Since launch their have been cars added but very few tracks. Cars you add are cars no-one has asked for and a good portion of the vehicles you have in the game are entirely uselss.
Your single player campaign is woefully lacking in content aswell as direction, or variety and given the content and variety of events in previous games I find the layout and offerings of GT7 to be absolutaly baffling.
Here we are 2 years post release with little progress to show for it. You care not about the players who dedicate their hard earned money, time, energy and effort but only for how much money you can squeeze and how little you can get away with.
You sir, conduct yourself without honor, without respect. You are ignorant.
If this game where to an FPS that had this level of(lack of) support people would comment on how "dead" this game is.
Indeed upon reaching a certian level we are left to flog a dead horse over and over in order to earn credits and try to enjoy what is offered. There you have decided that a maximum of approx 1 million credits per hour is to be installed leaving many players staring at dealership prices up 20 million credits.
Do you and other development companies assume that all your customers play your game and nothing else? Do you assume that no-one works, goes to school, eats or sleeps? Playing a game and grinding for 20 hours straight to buy one vehicle and empty my account to start again is disgustlingly disrespectul game engineering.
20 hours Kaz, that is half of a full working week for one vehicle Kaz...one.
As of today I have deleted GT7 from my console and shall not be installing unless you manage to pull off a No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk 2.0 and make improvements to your attitude toward the people who, at the end of the day Kaz - pay your bills.
We, we put you where you are by buying your games from the very first up until now.
I recomment many others do the same, there are better thing to do with your time and money than waste them on a selfish man's vanity project.
Gran Turismo is for me now on life support and I feel the next game, if there is one will be an absolute un-mittigated disaster.
I turn my nose up and my back to you, no longer will my precious time be wasted in you. Goodbye GT, it's been one hell of a 20 year ride but it's all over

Area events calendars: Clare, Farwell, Harrison, Mt. Pleasant
Library events calendars: Clare (PMDL), Farwell (STPL), Harrison (HDL), Mt. Pleasant (CRDL), Coleman
School events calendars: Clare, Farwell, Harrison, Mid Michigan College, Central Michigan University
​
​

Date	Time	Event	Location
01	10am-12pm	Paint the Pavement	Art Reach of Mid Michigan, 111 E Broadway St, Mt Pleasant
05	1pm-3pm	Beat the Heat: Summer Kickoff Celebration	Yost Park, 206 S Henry St, Mt Pleasant
05	2pm-4pm	Virtual Reality at the Library	Coleman Area Library, 111 1st St, Coleman
05, 12, 19	9am-12pm	Plein Air: Paint Our Preserves	varies
06	3pm-4pm	Make & Take Craft: Lava Lamps	Coleman Area Library, 111 1st St, Coleman
06, 13, 20, 27, Jul 11, 18, 25, Aug 01, 08, 15	7pm-9pm	Introduction to Wood Carving (10-week course)	Art Reach of Mid Michigan, 111 E Broadway St, Mt Pleasant
07	11am-2pm	Fun Day in the Park	Shamrock Park, 221 Wilcox Parkway, Clare
08	10am-12pm	Kids & Culture: Vintage Games	Bohannon One-Room Schoolhouse, Corner of W Preston Dr & W Campus Dr, Mt Pleasant
13	1pm-3pm	Gouache Mushrooms painting class	Art Reach of Mid Michigan, 111 E Broadway St, Mt Pleasant
14	1pm-3pm	Farm Fresh Watercolors painting class	Art Reach of Mid Michigan, 111 E Broadway St, Mt Pleasant
15	9am	CMU Summer Surplus Auction	275 W Bellows St, Mt Pleasant
15	10am-3pm	Book Sale	Veterans Memorial Library, 301 S University, Mt Pleasant
17-23	varies	Summerfest	Clare
22	9am-4pm	City Wide Garage Sales	Harrison
24	11am-12pm	Magnificent Maple Syrup presentation	Pere Marquette District Library, 185 E 4th St, Clare
24, Jul 01, 08, 15	11am-1pm	Creative Writing: Short Stories (4-week course)	Art Reach of Mid Michigan, 111 E Broadway St, Mt Pleasant

There've been dozens of theories over the years attempting to explain Red's disdain for talking. Sure, it could be meant to reflect how he was a mostly silent protagonist when we played as him, but that'd just be the out of universe reason; in-universe, it's still unclear. This was only made even more noticeable by Masters giving all the other protagonists voices and personalities, while Red remained as silent as ever.
It's not like Masters didn't do anything with Red, though. In fact, it did somewhat address his lack of talking in his 'A Day with Synga Suit Red' story.

Flint: "Speaking of... How do you give commands to your Pokemon during battles?"
Red: "... ... ... ... ... ... Words are unnecessary!"
Flint: "A bond so strong you don't even need to say anything... That's how in sync they are!"

Another thing Masters establishes about Red is that he's easily the most battle obsessed guy on Pasio.

Misty: "I mean, we ARE talking about the guy who wanted to focus on battling so much that he holed himself up in Mt. Silver!"
Professor Oak: "Red doesn't speak much, but he more than makes up for it through his actions. His passion for battle burns brighter than anyone else's. You can see it in his eyes."
Lucas: "It's true that Red's been spotted wherever intense battles happen to be. If we have a battle he'd want to join, we could get Red to come to us!"
Blue: "Pffft... It was easy. The fake wasn't giving off any of Red's usual "battle me right here, right now" vibes!"

Does seem pretty fitting that Red spent so much time battling, where he didn't need to talk, that he unintentionally stopped speaking much in general.
But at the same time, that doesn't make a ton of sense. Strong bonds are the norm for pretty much every character who's not an antagonist, while there's tons of other characters who are also obsessed with battles. How could characters like the other protagonists and various champions have not also reached this level?
Perhaps it's not necessarily Red's strong bonds or love of battle, but an actual special power that allows him to communicate wordlessly with his Pokemon. It'd certainty explain why Red's unique in this regard.
In fact, there's a decently fitting type of power that could be responsible: psychic power. For instance, as Sabrina tells us, she can use her powers to communicate with her Pokemon telepathically.

"It's one of my psychic powers."
(...)
"I can also directly communicate with my Pokemon without using my voice during battles."

However, this has two obvious problems. For starters, if Red's a psychic who can communicate telepathically, how come he doesn't talk to other people with this ability instead of going completely silent?
That's simple enough to answer. Either this ability can't be used on humans, or it requires a particularly strong bond. We get a good example of this during an event in Masters where Sabrina teams up with Volkner. She uses her abilities to help support him during battle, which he takes notice of.

Volkner: "Your support really helped me out! It was like you could tell beforehand what I was going to do. Is that your precognition at work?"
Sabrina: "Yes, it is."

However, nothing is ever said about telepathy, which you'd think Sabrina would heavily utilize with Volkner if she could, or at least, that Volkner would comment about it if it was.
But there's also another potential problem, though it's also simple to answer. Some may wonder why Red would be so used to not talking that'd he go completely silent at nearly all times, when Sabrina has the same ability, yet still talks quite a bit in comparison.
As mentioned, Red is easily the most battle obsessed person on Pasio, while Sabrina makes it pretty clear she's not the biggest fan of battling. Clearly she wouldn't be using this ability nearly as much as Red is.

"I don't enjoy battling, but it's my duty as a Gym Leader to confer Badges on anyone who has proven him- or herself worthy."
(...)
"I dislike battling, but if you wish to..."

Red being a psychic could also explain his stoic attitude as well, since controlling psychic powers largely seems to stem from one's own emotional state. This is most notably demonstrated by Caitlin.

"Haven't I ever told you? I possess psychic powers. When I was younger, I found it quite difficult to manage them, you see... When I lost a Pokemon battle, the crushing emotions I felt would cause my powers to spin out of control."
(...)
"As I moved into adulthood, I was able to control my emotions better and better. Eventually, I felt in control enough to compete in Pokemon battles all by myself."

Perhaps that's the real reason Red isolated himself on Mt. Silver. Maybe he discovered he had dangerous psychic abilities, so he trained in a remote area to control his powers, but everyone assumed he was just training his Pokemon; it's not like Red's going to speak up and correct them.
However, there's a few problems with this idea. The most obvious is how Red's never demonstrated or been implied to have any type of supernatural ability like this aside from his potential telepathy.
Another is how it seems like people can't just become psychics, they have to be born as one. Caitlin implies this, as does Avery's League Card.

"Avery comes from a long-standing family of psychics."
(...)
"Ever since he was a child, Avery could freely move things with his mind but lacked other skills, such as teleportation or telepathy. This has caused the rest of his family to label him as a disappointment."

Which would be one thing if Red was always silent, but the Copycat of Kanto indicates Red used to be quite talkative.

"Hi! Do you like Pokemon? Uh, no, I just asked you. Huh? You're strange!"

Not only that, but Avery's League Card also indicates telepathy may be a higher-level psychic ability, making Red's lack of other powers more noticeable.
However, there is another kind of special ability that could explain all this, one that may even be related to psychics as well, but...it doesn't come from the most reliable source.
Conquest's canonicity is pretty vague. It could go either way, but does steer towards non-canon. Doesn't make it the best source for theories, but hey, why not give it a few minutes of spotlight either way?
So, there aren't any Poke Balls in Conquest, which would normally make it quite difficult to catch and battle Pokemon. Luckily, there's a way around this. In Ransei, the setting of Conquest, there are individuals with a special kind of power that lets them overcome this lack of Poke Balls. I'll let the game do the talking.

Narration: "The Ransei region... An area inhabited by Warriors, those privileged few capable of communicating wordlessly with Pokemon."
Game Manual: "Among the people of Ransei are those known as Warriors, who possess the unique ability to communicate wordlessly, or "link," with Pokemon. Warriors are revered and respected by the people of the 17 kingdoms of Ransei."

Sounds pretty similar to Red, doesn't it?
Conquest doesn't comment much about how someone becomes a Warrior. But whether or not it's a skill that can be gained or something one has to be born with, both could still apply to Red. The former speaks for itself, and the latter, well, Red would only slowly realize his ability after spending a lot of time with Pokemon and noticing he doesn't need to issue commands like other trainers.
Hell, if Warriors are more directly tied to Ransei, perhaps that could also explain why Red loves battling so much. Maybe the drive for battle that was near omnipresent in the olden days of Ransei is something carried on and naturally more prominent in modern day Warriors. Though that is a lot more speculative, of course.
As mentioned earlier too, it's not out of the question Warriors are simply another form of psychic ability. Though like I also mentioned, with Conquest's questionable canonicity, the whole Warrior aspect of this theory is rather shaky in general. Still, if not a Warrior, it's always possible Red could be a low-level psychic that only happened to develop telepathy.

The profusion of identical green tents at this spring’s anti-Israel protests struck many as odd. “Why is everybody’s tent the same?,” asked New York mayor Eric Adams. Like others, the mayor suspected “a well-concerted organizing effort” driving the protests. More recent reporting shows a concerted push behind the Gaza protest movement. But it is not as simple as a single organization secretly rallying protesters or buying tents. Instead, the movement’s most determined activists represent a network of loosely linked far-left groups. Some are openly affiliated with well-known progressive nonprofits; others work in the shadows.
The movement also draws on diverse but generous sources of financial backing. Those funding streams may soon be augmented by the federal government. As I chronicled last year in a Manhattan Institute report, “The Big Squeeze: How Biden’s Environmental Justice Agenda Hurts the Economy and the Environment,” the administration’s massive program of environmental justice grants seems designed to prioritize the funding of highly ideological local groups. The Inflation Reduction Act, for example, earmarks $3 billion for “environmental and climate justice block grants” intended for local nonprofits. Today, hundreds of far-left political groups include language about environmental issues and “climate justice” in their mission statements. If just a fraction of planned grants flows to such groups, the effect will be a gusher of new funding for radical causes.
As the Gaza protests spread across U.S. college campuses, many observers noted an eerie uniformity among them. From one campus to the next, protesters operated in disciplined cadres, keeping their faces covered and using identical rote phrases as they refused to talk with reporters. The Atlantic noted the strangeness of seeing elite college students “chanting like automatons.” Students held up keffiyeh scarves or umbrellas to block the view of prying cameras and linked arms to halt the movements of outsiders. At Columbia University and elsewhere, protesters formed “liberated zones,” from which “Zionists” were excluded. Around the edges of the encampments, the more militaristic activists donned helmets and goggles and carried crude weapons, apparently eager to mix it up with police or counter-protesters. We’ve seen these tactics before—notably during the “mostly peaceful” Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, when full-time agitators helped ignite riots, set up a police-free (and violence-plagued) zone in Seattle, and laid nightly siege to Portland, Oregon’s federal courthouse.
In a remarkable work of reporting, Park MacDougald recently traced the tangled roots of organizations backing pro-jihad protests, both on and off campuses. These include Antifa and other networks of anonymous anarchists, along with “various communist and Marxist-Leninist groups, including the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and the International ANSWER coalition,” MacDougald writes. Higher up the food chain, we find groups openly supported by America’s growing class of super-rich tech execs or the anti-capitalist heirs of great fortunes. For example, retired tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, who is married to Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, funds The People’s Forum, a lavish Manhattan resource center for far-left groups. As the Columbia protests intensified, the center urged members to head uptown to “support our students.” Following the money trail of other protest groups, MacDougald finds connections to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, and—surprising no one—the George Soros-backed Tides Foundation.
Of course, the current wave of anti-Israel protests also involves alliances with pro-Hamas organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine. Last November, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that SJP and similar groups have deep ties to global terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
For many keffiyeh-wearing protestors, however, a recently professed concern for Palestinians is just the latest in a long list of causes they believe justify taking over streets and college quads. In Unherd, Mary Harrington dubs this medley of political beliefs the “omnicause,” writing that “all contemporary radical causes seem somehow to have been absorbed into one.” Today’s leftist activists share an interlocking worldview that sees racism, income inequality, trans intolerance, climate change, alleged police violence, and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts all as products of capitalism and “colonialism.” Therefore, the stated rationale for any individual protest is a stand-in for the real battle: attacking Western society and its institutions.
In the U.S., this type of general-purpose uprising goes back at least to the riots at the 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. In those protests, mainstream liberal factions—including labor unions and environmentalists—were joined by “black bloc” anarchists and other radicals eager to engage in “direct action” against police. That pattern—relatively moderate demonstrators providing a friendly envelope for hard-core disruptors—formed the template for many later protests: the Occupy Wall Street encampments in 2011, demonstrations following the police shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, 2016’s Standing Rock anti-pipeline movement, and of course, the calamitous summer of 2020.
These uprisings were not entirely spontaneous. In some cases, activists spend months planning mass actions—for example, against economic summits or political conventions—and can recruit street fighters from across the country. In others, an event, such as George Floyd’s death, sparks popular protests involving neophyte demonstrators. Those attract far-left activists, who swoop in to organize and expand the struggle, often tilting it toward more radical action.
That has certainly been the case at the college Gaza-paloozas. At Columbia, the New York Times spotted a woman old enough to be a student’s grandmother in the thick of the action as protesters barricaded that school’s Hamilton Hall. The woman was 63-year-old Lisa Fithian, a lifetime activist, who Portland’s alternative weekly Street Roots approvingly calls “a trainer of mass rebellion.” A counter-protester trying to block the pro-Hamas demonstrators told NBC News, “She was right in the middle of it, instructing them how to better set up the barriers.” Fithian told the Times she’d been invited to train students in protest safety and “general logistics.” She claims to have taken part in almost every major U.S. protest movement going back to the 1999 “Battle in Seattle.”
America’s radical network has plenty of Lisa Fithians, with the time and resources to travel the country educating newcomers about the “logistics” of disruptive protests. And these activists appear to have played key roles in the college occupations. The New York City Police Department says nearly half the demonstrators arrested on the Columbia and City University of New York (CUNY) campuses on April 30 were not affiliated with the schools. One hooded Hamilton Hall occupier—photographed scuffling with a Columbia custodian before getting arrested—turned out to be 40-year-old James Carlson, heir to a large advertising fortune. According to the New York Post, Carlson lives in a $2.3 million Park Slope townhouse and has a long rap sheet. For example, in 2005, he was arrested in San Francisco during the violent “West Coast Anti-Capitalist Mobilization and March Against the G8.” (Those charges were dropped.)
For a quarter-century now, Antifa and other anarchist networks have worked to refine tactics and share lessons following each major action. At Columbia, UCLA, and other schools, authorities found printouts of a “Do-It Yourself Occupation Guide” and similar documents. The young campus radicals are eager to learn from their more experienced elders. And, like the high-achieving students they are, they follow directions carefully. MacDougald asked Kyle Shideler, the director for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, about the mystery of the identical tents. There was no need for a central group to distribute hundreds of tents, Shideler said. Instead, “the organizers told [students] to buy a tent, and sent around a Google Doc with a link to that specific tent on Amazon. So they all went out and bought the same tent.”
In other words, America’s radical class has gotten very skilled at recruiting and instructing new activists—even from among the ranks of elite college students with a good deal to lose. How much more could this movement accomplish with hundreds of millions in federal dollars flooding activist groups around the country?
From its first week in office, the Biden administration has trumpeted its goal to funnel more environmental spending toward “disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized,” partly by issuing grants to grassroots organizations. Previous environmental justice (EJ) grant programs were small in scope. But, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, a huge pool of grant money became available. EPA administrator Michael Regan told reporters, “We’re going from tens of thousands of dollars to developing and designing a program that will distribute billions.”
More than a year and a half later, it remains hard to nail down just where the Biden administration’s billions in EJ grants will wind up. Money is being distributed through a confusing variety of programs, and the process of identifying recipients is ongoing. To help outsource the job of sifting through proposals, the EPA last year designated 11 institutions as “Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmakers.” These groups are empowered to make subgrants directly to community organizations, under streamlined EPA oversight. In all, the Biden administration has entrusted these outfits with distributing a staggering $600 million in funding. The money is expected to start flowing this summer.
The EPA’s grantmakers include a number of educational institutions and left-leaning nonprofits. For example, the EPA chose Fordham University as its lead grantmaker in the New York region. Fordham, in turn, lists as partners two nonprofits that oppose immigration enforcement. (One, the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, states on its website: “NJAIJ believes in the human right to migrate, regardless of citizenship or political status.”) Neither group claims expertise in environmental issues. Given that the IRA’s eligibility requirements for EJ grants are extremely vague, however, perhaps that’s not a problem. Almost any activity that could help “spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities” (in the words of Biden’s EJ executive order) might qualify.
Perhaps the most prominent—and problematic—EPA grantmaker is the Berkeley, California-based Climate Justice Alliance. The CJA is a consortium of mostly far-left activist groups. It describes its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” The group is a vigorous proponent of the omnicause, embracing almost every left-wing concern as a manifestation of climate change. For example, the CJA website proclaims: “The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine.” MacDougald notes that the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, one of CJA’s affiliated groups, “organized an illegal anti-Israel protest in the Capitol Rotunda in December at which more than 50 activists were arrested.”
The CJA website also includes a section dedicated to the cause known as Stop Cop City. It refers to an effort to halt the construction of an 85-acre police and firefighter training center outside Atlanta. Rag-tag activists from around the country have gathered around the facility since 2021. They have repeatedly battled with police—sometimes with fireworks and Molotov cocktails—and used bolt cutters to enter the site and torch construction equipment. (CJA’s Stop Cop City page features a cartoon illustration of three childlike activists; one brandishes bolt cutters.) The group also backs a legal defense fund for activists arrested in attacks on the training center or in other protests. For those looking for more inspiration, CJA links to an interview with former Black Panther and self-described revolutionary Angela Davis.
The Alliance is not an ideological outlier in Biden’s EJ coalition. On the contrary, when the White House assembled its White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), a panel of outside experts meant to provide “horizon-expanding EJ advice and recommendations,” it chose CJA co-chair Elizabeth Yeampierre to help lead the committee. Like other members of the panel, she sees environmental issues through an ideological, not a scientific, lens. “Climate change is the result of a legacy of extraction, of colonialism, of slavery,” Yeampierre told Yale Environment 360. As a group, radical EJ activists tend not to focus on pragmatic ways to reduce pollution and carbon emissions; for them, the real goal is overturning what they see as an exploitative economic and political system. Since these are the voices the White House chose to help shape its EJ policies, we can assume this worldview will dominate grantmaking decisions.
In February 2023, House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer, along with fellow committee member Pat Fallon, wrote to EPA administrator Regan asking for more information on the EPA’s grant programs. They noted that the EPA’s own studies of EJ grants issued in previous years showed sloppy supervision. According to an EPA report, an earlier version of the program funded projects that did “not logically lead to the desired environmental and/or public health [result].” Without better oversight and more clearly defined goals, the congressmen wrote, the EPA’s EJ grant machine risks becoming simply a “slush fund for far-left organizations.”
Since then, the administration has done little to reassure skeptics. To the contrary, the EPA has put at least one far-left organization—CJA—in charge of distributing $50 million in grant money. No doubt, many of the EPA grants will go to worthwhile projects. But money is fungible. A group that gets a large grant to, say, clean up dirty parks or teach children about recycling will also be able to hire more staff and divert more resources to political action.
With graduation behind them, most of the anti-Israel college protesters have stowed away their keffiyehs and moved on to summer vacations or internships. But the peripatetic activists who helped guide and intensify those uprisings are doubtless already planning their next actions. After all, two political conventions are looming. This fall, the college protests will likely flare up again, though by then perhaps focused on a different facet of the omnicause. And, with hundreds of millions in fresh funding flowing through the activist ecosystem, the groups that quietly nurture extremists—like those who firebombed “Cop City,” or who chant “Intifada Revolution!,” or who block bridges in the name of “climate”—will be more emboldened than ever.
A Slush Fund for Radical Protesters? City Journal (city-journal.org)
​